Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> No. You asked weather it was fine to require Emacs 24.4 in your >> original message, then people pointed out that Emacs 24.3 was still >> widely used, then you said it was fine to require Emacs 24.3, just >> Emacs 24.4 was "icing on the cake". > > That's correct, excepted that you were the first to ask "why 24.4 and > not 24.3"? So I assumed it was between 24.3 and 24.4. OK, I understand. I was just curious about why 24.4 and not 24.3, since 24.4 does not add that much from a developer's point of view. >> This is not a light decision, as we cannot move back, and I don't >> see the need for rushing here. > > There is no rushing, really. Emacs 24 was released in 2012, and lexical > binding is a huge step forward for developers. There is some serious > work involved to make the jump (along with cl-lib switch), so the sooner > we can start, the better. I don't mean the rushing in general, I meaning the rushing between the feedback you asked for and the move to commit things that assume the answer has been given. RMS replied to the question on emacs-devel: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/188810 He suggests to continue supporting Emacs 23. So my suggestion still stands: - let's keep master in the current compatibility state since the question you asked still needs to be answer (it's just 10 days since it was asked). - let's use a dedicated branch for commits requiring Emacs 24.3+. Maybe we will end up distributing Org 8.3+ for Emacs 23.1 and Org 9+ for Emacs 24.3+ -- I don't know. Let's take 10-15 days to build a strategy together, with feedbacks from various sources and information we share. We need this time to consider the question seriously. Please revert the changes in master that assume Org needs Emacs 24.3+. Thanks, -- Bastien
